InMind: Evaluating LLMs in Capturing and Applying Individual Human Reasoning Styles (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Zizhen Li, Chuanhao Li, Yibin Wang, Qi Chen, Diping Song, Yukang Feng, Jianwen Sun, Jiaxin Ai, Fanrui Zhang, Mingzhu Sun, Kaipeng Zhang
| Challenge: | Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning abilities across complex mathematical and scientific domains. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to assess whether LLMs can capture and apply personalized reasoning styles in social deduction games. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates LLMs on the game Avalon and shows that they can capture and apply individualized reasoning styles. |
Similar Papers
Leveraging LLM Reasoning Enhances Personalized Recommender Systems (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Alicia Tsai, Adam Kraft, Long Jin, Chenwei Cai, Anahita Hosseini, Taibai Xu, Zemin Zhang, Lichan Hong, Ed H. Chi, Xinyang Yi
| Challenge: | Recent advances have showcased the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in executing reasoning tasks, particularly facilitated by Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. |
| Approach: | They propose to use Large Language Models to perform tasks with subjectivity and personalized preferences as inputs to RecSys. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework aligns with real human judgment on the coherence and faithfulness of LLM reasoning responses. |
SMART: Evaluating LLMs’ Mathematical Reasoning via a Human Cognitive Process-Inspired Benchmark (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation methods focus on the final answer or on the intermediate reasoning steps, overlooking its inherently multi-stage and multi-dimensional nature. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that decomposes mathematical problem-solving into four cognitive dimensions and introduces dimension-specific tasks to measure their cognitive processes. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model decomposes mathematical problem-solving into four cognitive dimensions and introduces dimension-specific tasks to measure their cognitive processes. |
ReEfBench: Quantifying the Reasoning Efficiency of LLMs (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for Chain-of-Thought evaluations do not distinguish between genuine reasoning and mere verbosity. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for the non-intrusive, comprehensive process-centric evaluation of reasoning grounded in First-Order Logic. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework identifies four distinct behavioral prototypes and diagnoses the failure modes. |
GAMEBoT: Transparent Assessment of LLM Reasoning in Games (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing efforts to create benchmarks that move beyond superficial pattern recognition to delve into the profound reasoning skills required for problemsolving face challenges such as insufficient interpretability, performance saturation or data contamination. |
| Approach: | They propose a gaming arena designed for rigorous assessment of LLM reasoning capabilities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework decomposes complex reasoning into predefined modular subproblems and generates ground truth for these subproblem types. |
InterIntent: Investigating Social Intelligence of LLMs via Intention Understanding in an Interactive Game Context (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the potential to mimic human social intelligence, but most studies focus on static self-report or performance-based tests. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to assess LLMs' ability to understand and manage intentions by mapping their ability to infer the intentions of others in a game setting. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework assesses LLMs' ability to understand and manage intentions in a game setting. |
Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in the domain of large language models (LLMs) have showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. |
| Approach: | They examine inferential strategies employed by large language models through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model shows that it displays reasoning patterns similar to humans, including strategies like supposition following or chain construction. |
Are LLMs Effective Negotiators? Systematic Evaluation of the Multifaceted Capabilities of LLMs in Negotiation Dialogues (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being utilized as AI negotiation agents . however, prior research on LLMs lacks a systematic evaluation of their diverse capabilities in negotiation. |
| Approach: | They propose to analyze the multifaceted capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse dialogue scenarios throughout the stages of a typical negotiation interaction. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms GPT-4 in many negotiation tasks while identifying specific challenges, such as making subjective assessments and generating contextually appropriate, strategically advantageous responses. |
Mapping the Minds of LLMs: A Graph-Based Analysis of Reasoning LLMs (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often display unstable behaviors, e.g., hallucinating unsupported premises, overthinking simple tasks, and displaying higher sensitivity to prompt variations. |
| Approach: | They propose a graph-based analytical framework that clusters long, verbose CoT outputs into semantically coherent reasoning steps, then constructs directed reasoning graphs to capture contextual and logical dependencies among these steps. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework enables quantitative evaluation of internal reasoning structure and quality beyond conventional metrics and provides practical insights for prompt engineering and cognitive analysis of LLMs. |
Rethinking Pragmatics in Large Language Models: Towards Open-Ended Evaluation and Preference Tuning (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to assess social-pragmatic inference in large language models are inadequacy, and preferential tuning is the best approach. |
| Approach: | They propose to use free-form models' responses as a measure to assess social-pragmatic reasoning and advocate for preference optimization over supervised finetuning (SFT). |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms supervised finetuning (SFT) and offers a near-free launch in pragmatic abilities without compromising general capabilities. |
Beyond Detection: Evaluating Fallacy Awareness of LLMs in Interactive Scenarios (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models fail to recognize fallacious reasoning in real-world interactions despite strong performance on static fallacy detection tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a Chinese benchmark to assess fallacy awareness without explicit cues . they propose 'fate' evaluation framework that assesses fallacy without explicit . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework assesses fallacy awareness without explicit cues, combining natural dialogue responses and reasoning-based decisions. |